I'm streets ahead as a Community fan but even I was disappointed with most of the episodes this season. It was time for it to go.

Agreed. It was one of my absolute favorites back in the day, but I'm now three episodes behind this season. That never used to happen, and it's a clear indicator that the show isn't nearly as compelling as it once was.

Sorry to be a dick, but I'm glad to see Community go. If only they would also get rid of Parks and Rec then maybe some of their "I'm better than you because I like 'smart' comedies" fanboys will be quieted. Case in point...

People have different tastes in humor. I still can't understand why fans of NBC comedies have such a holier than thou attitude.

This....in spades.

__________________"Wonderful things can happen when you sow seeds of mistrust in a garden of a**holes," -- Philosopher Raylan Givens

I think smart comedies thrive to make people who don't get the jokes look stupid....and I really LIKED Community...when I got the jokes.

There are all different kinds of humor. None is necessarily more valid than the rest. Chris Farley made a career out of (in his words) "see fatty fall down" comedy, even as his SNL castmates were doing more so-called sophisticated things.

A show like Community wasn't trying to make anyone seem stupid, I don't think. It was just doing a particular brand of comedy. And it was was as broad as comedy gets at times, unless you think featuring a monkey AND naming it "Annie's Boobs" is subtle.

Anyway, just because a show has sex jokes doesn't make it dumb. Full House is dumb. 2 Broke Girls can actually be pretty clever.

Also, I don't think Community was "smart." Smart to me is wordplay and clever twists. Throwing a meme into a show is not "smart" in itself. Community was more pretentious and relied on in-humor making everyone think it was smart.

It was far more formula than it appeared because it used pop culture as it's backdrop and went into imaginary realms.

Anyway, just because a show has sex jokes doesn't make it dumb. Full House is dumb. 2 Broke Girls can actually be pretty clever.

Also, I don't think Community was "smart." Smart to me is wordplay and clever twists. Throwing a meme into a show is not "smart" in itself. Community was more pretentious and relied on in-humor making everyone think it was smart.

It was far more formula than it appeared because it used pop culture as it's backdrop and went into imaginary realms.

It was formula. Just because they wrap the formula in a different environment or use a different meme or different homage does not make it non-formula. The formula was simple. Various members of the group fight with each other and at the end decide they are good for each other and are friends. The next week, start over. They even made fun of the formula on screen. Jeff always made some big speech at the end. They poked fun at that during the series.

While a lot of Community was funny, it wasn't really that clever. Ripping off other themes does not make a show clever. At least no more clever than Mad Magazine.

But. My god. I'm poking at a show that everyone has to think is smart and clever because it said it was. It has to be intelligent TV because it was odd. Nope. Two and Half Men is more intelligent. The Office was more intelligent.

Yes. Blasphemy. I know. Too damned bad. I liked it. I watched it. It made me laugh. But it was not challenging or unexpected or include clever dialog.

In short. Formula and not clever. But a lot of people think Family Guy is clever, too.

2 Broke Girls is basically a series of one liners, wrapped into a 22 minute "story". Everybody plays it like they know exactly what the other guy is going to say, waiting to tee off with their joke. Community is the opposite of formulaic. Unless that formula is to do something different every week. -smak-

A different skin doesn't make it something different. Same guts pretty much every week with a different skin.

Why won't people just let shows go. We got three brilliant seasons of Arrested Development with a pretty good wrap-up. Then they decide Netflix can save them, come out with 14 new episodes, and they largely suck. How many of the 97 episodes of Community were truly memorable? Half? A third? Yeah, it was a smart show and it was funny, but it's time. Five years is plenty for every sitcom.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...and Hulu may uncancel it. They're in talks with Sony about making season six.

Although this should be viewed with a highly skeptical eye. The story was originally broken by Deadline, which seems to author a story like this every time a Sony-owned show gets canceled. Seems every single time, Sony is "in talks" with someone to revive the canceled show, but surprisingly, the talks never go anywhere.

So unless I hear otherwise from a more reputable source, I'm going to assume this is more of the same.

It was formula. Just because they wrap the formula in a different environment or use a different meme or different homage does not make it non-formula. The formula was simple. Various members of the group fight with each other and at the end decide they are good for each other and are friends. The next week, start over. They even made fun of the formula on screen. Jeff always made some big speech at the end. They poked fun at that during the series.

While a lot of Community was funny, it wasn't really that clever. Ripping off other themes does not make a show clever. At least no more clever than Mad Magazine.

But. My god. I'm poking at a show that everyone has to think is smart and clever because it said it was. It has to be intelligent TV because it was odd. Nope. Two and Half Men is more intelligent. The Office was more intelligent.

Yes. Blasphemy. I know. Too damned bad. I liked it. I watched it. It made me laugh. But it was not challenging or unexpected or include clever dialog.

In short. Formula and not clever. But a lot of people think Family Guy is clever, too.

Ugh, the arrogance in your posts about your sitcoms is dumbfounding. I watched 2 Broke Girls until it got repetitive. It was not clever. It was repeated jokes about girls being broke or being a whore or making fun of the racist caricatures. The best part was the black dude manning the register, and that was basically just the actor telling stories that actually happened to him. Two and a Half Men was so atrocious one of the actors railed against it These were not intelligent shows. That's fine, they'll survive years longer than Community will. Be satisfied with that.

More annoying than the fanboys who insist that Community is a brilliant show are the contrarians are the people who rebel and say it's not that smart and the shows for the lowest common denominator are far more intelligent. Just because a show is made for idiots and lasts for a decade doesn't mean it's smart.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ugh, the arrogance in your posts about your sitcoms is dumbfounding. I watched 2 Broke Girls until it got repetitive. It was not clever. It was repeated jokes about girls being broke or being a whore or making fun of the racist caricatures. The best part was the black dude manning the register, and that was basically just the actor telling stories that actually happened to him. Two and a Half Men was so atrocious one of the actors railed against it These were not intelligent shows. That's fine, they'll survive years longer than Community will. Be satisfied with that.

More annoying than the fanboys who insist that Community is a brilliant show are the contrarians are the people who rebel and say it's not that smart and the shows for the lowest common denominator are far more intelligent. Just because a show is made for idiots and lasts for a decade doesn't mean it's smart.

In some cases, actually many cases, we have critics telling us what is "intelligent" or people who fancy themselves as TV intellectuals. You can tell those people because they won't watch shows that are "beneath them". "Oh I don't like reality shows", or "I only watch stuff on cable because shows on the major networks are too dumb" and stuff like that. I have to agree with Tony here. All shows have formulas. Community essentially followed a formula as well. What set it apart was that they filled each episode with tons of pop culture stuff. It worked well when they had enough of an audience that "got it" but didn't work all that well when the stuff was so "niche" that only a select few who "saw the movie" or "read the book" or "played the game" got it. That's not necessarily smart writing as much as it's "smug" writing. "I don't care if you don't get the jokes, we do, so too bad if you don't". I give them credit for trying, and many episodes were as funny as anything I'd ever seen. But those episodes I "GOT" the jokes. I bet a lot of people didn't and were left scratching their heads. Perfect example, this season they did a spoof on the GI Joe cartoons of the 80s. Well, I never watched those, I was too old so half the stuff went over my head and I didn't think it was all that funny. But people of that generation here, LOVED the episode. It's a LOT harder trying to be funny AND to appeal to a wide audience.

As for shows on cable being "better" than network shows because they can be edgier, it reminds me of the comedian (Maybe Cosby, maybe Seinfeld, I can't remember) who in an interview, said that it's a lot more difficult to be funny telling clean jokes than off color ones. To me that is the same thing here. I think it takes MUCH better writing talent to write a good show under the constraints of Network rules than it is where "anything goes". It's why someone like Sorkin can pull it off under both, and be successful at it. I wonder how many of the writers who have successful cable shows could write for mainstream TV?

Ugh, the arrogance in your posts about your sitcoms is dumbfounding. I watched 2 Broke Girls until it got repetitive. It was not clever. It was repeated jokes about girls being broke or being a whore or making fun of the racist caricatures. The best part was the black dude manning the register, and that was basically just the actor telling stories that actually happened to him. Two and a Half Men was so atrocious one of the actors railed against it These were not intelligent shows. That's fine, they'll survive years longer than Community will. Be satisfied with that. More annoying than the fanboys who insist that Community is a brilliant show are the contrarians are the people who rebel and say it's not that smart and the shows for the lowest common denominator are far more intelligent. Just because a show is made for idiots and lasts for a decade doesn't mean it's smart.

Stick it. I find wordplay much more clever than cosplay. I enjoyed community but it was repetitive.

In some cases, actually many cases, we have critics telling us what is "intelligent" or people who fancy themselves as TV intellectuals. You can tell those people because they won't watch shows that are "beneath them". "Oh I don't like reality shows", or "I only watch stuff on cable because shows on the major networks are too dumb" and stuff like that. I have to agree with Tony here. All shows have formulas. Community essentially followed a formula as well. What set it apart was that they filled each episode with tons of pop culture stuff. It worked well when they had enough of an audience that "got it" but didn't work all that well when the stuff was so "niche" that only a select few who "saw the movie" or "read the book" or "played the game" got it. That's not necessarily smart writing as much as it's "smug" writing. "I don't care if you don't get the jokes, we do, so too bad if you don't". I give them credit for trying, and many episodes were as funny as anything I'd ever seen. But those episodes I "GOT" the jokes. I bet a lot of people didn't and were left scratching their heads. Perfect example, this season they did a spoof on the GI Joe cartoons of the 80s. Well, I never watched those, I was too old so half the stuff went over my head and I didn't think it was all that funny. But people of that generation here, LOVED the episode. It's a LOT harder trying to be funny AND to appeal to a wide audience.

As for shows on cable being "better" than network shows because they can be edgier, it reminds me of the comedian (Maybe Cosby, maybe Seinfeld, I can't remember) who in an interview, said that it's a lot more difficult to be funny telling clean jokes than off color ones. To me that is the same thing here. I think it takes MUCH better writing talent to write a good show under the constraints of Network rules than it is where "anything goes". It's why someone like Sorkin can pull it off under both, and be successful at it. I wonder how many of the writers who have successful cable shows could write for mainstream TV?

I've tried plenty of shows that people would consider "beneath them". For someone to call Community repetitive and then play up the merits of 2 Broke Girls (not you) is the height of irony. I've never been into Parks & Rec, The Office didn't grab me, but I like Community, probably because I did get a lot of the in jokes (the Dungeons & Dragons stuff was beyond me). I liked Mike & Molly at the start, but it eventually became one big fat joke that I didn't care about. The trend was disappointing.

As for writing for network TV, why would anyone want to? You bring up Sorkin, but really he's only had one network hit - The West Wing, which was brilliant. Sports Night and Studio 60, while good, were generally flops. You get shows that are interesting but if it's not a reality show or the latest iteration of Law & Order, CSI or NCIS, you're just not going to last. A network sitcom may get 13 episodes to prove itself. Meanwhile Louie's on its 4th season and Legit gets 2 seasons to prove itself. If you want a unique show to survive, why would you aim for the networks?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've tried plenty of shows that people would consider "beneath them". For someone to call Community repetitive and then play up the merits of 2 Broke Girls (not you) is the height of irony. I've never been into Parks & Rec, The Office didn't grab me, but I like Community, probably because I did get a lot of the in jokes (the Dungeons & Dragons stuff was beyond me). I liked Mike & Molly at the start, but it eventually became one big fat joke that I didn't care about. The trend was disappointing.

As for writing for network TV, why would anyone want to? You bring up Sorkin, but really he's only had one network hit - The West Wing, which was brilliant. Sports Night and Studio 60, while good, were generally flops. You get shows that are interesting but if it's not a reality show or the latest iteration of Law & Order, CSI or NCIS, you're just not going to last. A network sitcom may get 13 episodes to prove itself. Meanwhile Louie's on its 4th season and Legit gets 2 seasons to prove itself. If you want a unique show to survive, why would you aim for the networks?

I watched Louis and I never thought it was remotely funny. I like Louis CK's stand up much better than his acting.

The reason why anyone would want to? It probably pays more for one. And if you can do it well and get a hit, then you get way more than 13 episodes a season. I think it's MUCH harder to write well for a network sitcom. Throw in a few explicit sex jokes and a ton of curse words and you have a successful cable sitcom. The beauty of Seinfeld, was that they could hint at ALL of that without actually saying any of it. And it made it SO much funnier. And THAT'S much harder to do.

I watched Louis and I never thought it was remotely funny. I like Louis CK's stand up much better than his acting.

The reason why anyone would want to? It probably pays more for one. And if you can do it well and get a hit, then you get way more than 13 episodes a season. I think it's MUCH harder to write well for a network sitcom. Throw in a few explicit sex jokes and a ton of curse words and you have a successful cable sitcom. The beauty of Seinfeld, was that they could hint at ALL of that without actually saying any of it. And it made it SO much funnier. And THAT'S much harder to do.

Have you watched your average network sitcom? All it is is sex. It may not have the curse words but it's not far off.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Have you watched your average network sitcom? All it is is sex. It may not have the curse words but it's not far off.

Not really. Maybe the ones you watch.

I watched this past season:
The Middle
Modern Family
Brooklyn 99
Community (now gone)
The Big Bang Theory
The Goldbergs

Among others. While there might be a little subtle sex talk, none of these shows could be considered ALL SEX. Maybe Two And a Half Men or Mike and Molly is, but I don't watch those. I agree, stupid.

On the other hand, on Cable I have watched:
The League
Playing House
Silicon Valley
Sirens
The Stephen Merchant HBO show (the name escapes me)

These shows ALL have a LOT more sex than the shows I mentioned, overtly shown, with strong language, and either nudity or semi-nudity. I'm no prude and I have enjoyed these shows, but I think they are a lot easier to write without the restrictions. I don't think ANY of them are funnier than any of the sitcoms I watch on network TV.